No fee unless we recover compensation for your family Text size 833-4-ASBESTOS (833-427-2378) Free Case Review

Search

15 results for “General Electric”

  1. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · April 24, 1997 · in the opinion

    Conway v. Raymark Indus. (In re Asbestos Litigation, 1997)

    …Fed.Cir.1985); In re Upjohn Co. Antibiotic Cleocin Products Liability Litigation, 664 F.2d 114, 118 (6th Cir.1981); General Electric Co. v. Byrne, 611 F.2d 670, 673 (7th Cir.1979). Judge Weiner's…

  2. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit · March 20, 1990 · in the opinion

    Johnson v. Celotex Corp. (1990)

    …that there was exposure, but was compelled to come to that result. Plaintiff worked at the Navy Yard from 1942 to 1945 as an electrician's helper on board ships including the Missouri, the Iowa and…

  3. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit · March 27, 1989 · in the opinion

    Dube v. Pittsburgh Corning (1989)

    …768 F.2d 1059 (9th Cir.1985) (relying in part on statute authorizing Surgeon General to release test data "at such times and to such extent as \[he\] may determine to be [\799] in the public…

  4. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit · September 26, 1990 · in the opinion

    Hoffman v. Allied Corp. (1990)

    …however, that no asbestos products were used within the ordnance repair shop itself. [\1381] Leo Rapacilo was an electrician who worked in close proximity to asbestos products on the ships in dry dock at the shipyard…

  5. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · November 5, 1997 · in the opinion

    Ciletti v. Raymark Indus. (In re Asbestos Litigation, 1997)

    In general, filing a proof of claim would not appear to constitute settlement under § 15-108. The plaintiff's proffer of a release to the defendant has been called "the defining moment of settlement", In re…

  6. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit · November 28, 1988 · in the opinion

    Menne v. Celotex Corp. (1988)

    …113 (3d Cir.1985) (evidence of general use of Pittsburgh Corning's Unibestos at job site was sufficient to allow jury to find Pittsburgh Corning to be a factor in causing the plaintiff's injury). \[13…

  7. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · April 14, 1995 · in the opinion

    Kirk v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1995)

    …the petit jury venire. The Supreme Court announced a general rule that "\[t\]he denial or impairment of the right \[to exercise peremptory challenges\] is reversible error without a showing of prejudice." Swain, 380 U.S…

  8. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maine · December 29, 1986 · in the opinion

    In re All Maine Asbestos Litigation (1986)

    …very different tone than the 1969 Ship Repair Contracting Manual's Paragraph 12-7(b), which states that "\[i\]n general, the SUPSHIP surveyor should not be concerned with unsafe practices on the part of the…

  9. Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · September 18, 1989 · in the opinion

    IN the Matter of Estate OF Foster (1989)

    …Innes deposition testimony as a whole, therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing it as general background to the early production levels of the Owens-Illinois product. Affirmed. WINSOR, J., and DEIERLEIN…

  10. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Kansas · August 19, 1986 · in the opinion

    Menne v. Celotex Corp. (1986)

    …the cause in fact of his injuries does not undermine the principle that a defendant should only be held responsible for the damage it caused. As long as a plaintiff can prove general causation, i.e.…

  11. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · November 19, 1984 · in the opinion

    Colombo v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1984)

    13, 68 L.Ed.2d 1 (1981) (federal law shall govern issues arising in negligence actions under LHWCA section 5(b)) with Edmonds v. Compagnie Generale Atlantique, 443 U.S. 256, 272 n. 31, 99 S…

  12. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii · December 9, 1986 · in the opinion

    In re Hawaii Federal Asbestos Cases (1986)

    …Moreover the Hawaii Court of Appeals has held that the introduction of concepts of "unreasonableness" and "foreseeability" into products liability confuses the jury and equates strict liability with negligence. Boudreau v. General Elec. Co., 2 Haw…

  13. Court case · Washington Supreme Court · October 15, 1987 · in the opinion

    Lockwood v. AC & S, Inc. (1987)

    …jury. The evidence before the jury included expert testimony on asbestos and the disease of asbestosis, the dangerousness of asbestos to individuals in general and to shipyard workers, and the effects of combining smoking with asbestosis…

  14. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · December 15, 1988 · in the opinion

    Whatley v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (1988)

    …474 (5th Cir.1985); see Shipp v. General Motors Corp., 750 F.2d 418, 425 (5th Cir.1985) (Duncan placed the allocative burden of comparative causation on the defendant). Sufficiency of the Evidence Whatley contends that…

  15. Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · February 4, 1991 · in the opinion

    Koker v. Armstrong Cork, Inc. (1991)

    …344, 348, 693 P.2d 687 (1985): In an ordinary personal injury action, the general rule is that a cause of action "accrues" at the time the act or omission occurs. In certain torts, however, injured…